Contemporary Jahmite Ash'aris have attempted to slander Ibn Taymiyyah by imputing to him the saying that Allaah is "composite" and "divisible", based upon their feeble and crippled intellects mixed with the corrupt intentions and their lack of honesty, integrity and justice towards the opponent. And we have explained in other articles that Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly negates that Allaah is "murakkab" (composite) or "munqasim" (divisible) due to the fact that He is "as-Samad", which signifies His complete oneness, unity and impossibility of being subject to "tarkeeb (composition)" and "inqisaam (divisibility)". And there are abundant texts in this regard from Ibn Taymiyyah. Thus, tarkeeb and inqisaam and other such similar things are negated from Allaah, upon their established, known meanings according to the language of the Qur'aan and the language of the Arabs.

As for the Deniers (of the Attributes) - the Philosophers, Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah and Ash'ariyyah - then they have their own devised meanings for these terms such as "tarkeeb" and "inqisaam" and so on.

• The Philosophers, who affirm one who is "waajib ul-wujood" (that whose existence is necessary) claim that naming or describing the necessarily existent with any additional meanings is "composition" (tarkeeb) - thus they accuse all the Mutakallimoon (Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah) as being Mujassimah (rendering Allaah to be a body) - because they have declared Him composite, by implying multiplicity of meanings to Him. This is because the Jahmites affirmed "al-Khaaliq" and "al-Qaadir" for Allaah - they had to when push came to shove - and they negated everything else. And the Mu'tazilah affirm the Names, and the Ash'ariyyah affirm some of the attributes. Therefore, because they all affirm something besides mere existence for Allaah, they are all guilty of declaring Allaah to be composite and divisible, according to the Philosophers.

• The Jahmites accuse the Mu'tazilah of declaring Allaah to be divisible and composite because they have affirmed Names for Allaah.

• The Mu'tazilah accuse the Ash'ariyyah of having declared Allaah to be composite and divisible because they have affirmed attributes for Him.

• The Ash'ariyyah accuse Ahl us-Sunnah of having declared Allaah to be composite and divisible because they affirm for Allaah whatever has come in the texts of attributes.

And in all of these accusations, they are working upon meanings for these terms "tarkeeb" and "inqisaam" which are not known in the language, rather these meanings and definitions are from their own inventions and fabrications.

So for example, a man who is described as generous, kind, loving, and patient is said to be composite - and he can never be described as "one (waahid)" according to these people. In other words, the mere existence of "distinction" and "otherness" within an entity renders it "not one". This is pure sophistry and falsehood, and Allaah, the Most High, has rendered this futile (as we will see in what follows), in His Book.

Thus, all of these factions work upon meanings for these terms that are unknown in the language and which actually oppose the language of the Qur'aan and the language of the Arabs. Then upon these devised meanings, they accuse those who affirm the attributes to have declared Him to be composite and divisible.

And it is this same underlying argument that the chief orator of the pro-Jahmite creed from the Later Ash'aris, Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi (d. 606H), has used to deny that Allaah is above the Throne, and to accuse those who say that He is above the Throne of having declared Him divisible and composite. Rather, they say He is al-Ahad and as-Samad and He is above the Throne, without the false necessities fabricated in the mind of ar-Razi and his likes - who claim that if Allaah was above the Throne, then as the Throne is mighty, He too must be mighty, and since the Throne has a distinct right side and left side, then the same must be the case for Allaah, and this must mean that Allaah has "different areas", and because this is impossible, Allaah cannot be upon the Throne, and saying that He is means He is divisible.

So these are the fabrications of their own minds, which are false necessities they have made binding upon the sayings of Allaah in His Book, and upon the sayings of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the sayings of the Companions, and the sayings of the Imaams of the Taabi'een, and then those after them, and the generality of the Salaf - which is that Allaah is above the Throne, separate and distinct from His creation, and they declared the Jahmites as disbelievers for rejecting this, amongst other things.

Ibn Taymiyyah on Allaah's Ahadiyyah and Samadiyyah And A Refutation of Contempary Jahmee Baleeds Accusing Him Of Saying that Allaah is divisible and composite

Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said in "Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah" (3/487-491):

The translation:

What makes this clear is that His Name al-Ahad negates that there is a likeness (mithl) for Him from anything from the things, for it (the Name al-Ahad) negates the false tashbeeh (resemblance). And His Name as-Samad negates that separation (tafarruq) and divisibility (inqisaam) - and whatever that comprises of composition (tarkeeb) and corporeality (tajassud, something being a body)- are permitted for Him. And this is because He, the Sublime, described Himself with as-Samadiyyah, just as He described (Himself) with al-Ahadiyyah, and He, the Sublime, "...there is nothing like unto Him..." in all of His attributes. Rather, He is perfect in all His qualities just as nothing resembles Him in them, then He is also perfect in as-Samadiyyah, as He is perfect in al-Ahadiyyah.

And "al-waahid" (i.e. a single entity) from the creation can be described as being "one (waahid)", as He said:

...And if she is one (waahidah) ... (an-Nisaa 4:11)

And (a single entity) can also be described as "al-ahad" restrictedly, or unrestrictedly, as in His saying:

...So let one of us (ahadunaa) take his place... (Yusuf 12:78)

and

... When one of them (ahuduhum) is brought news of a female (i.e. daughter)... (Nahl 16:58)

and

...And there is none (ahad) that is co-equal to Him... (Ikhlaas 112:4)

And (the single entity from the creation) can also be described as as-Samad, and as Yahyaa bin Abi Katheer said

The Angels are Samad (have no interior and require no food), and the humans are Jawf (have interior and require food).

and just as the poet said:

Let the announcer (of deaths) hasten with the (announcing) of the best of Bani Asad. With Amr bin Mas'ood and with as-Sayyid as-Samad.

And as (the poet) said:

And you are as-Sayyid as-Samad

And thus, when there is the meaning of oneness (al-wahdah) and the meaning of samadiyyah in the servant alongside (the fact) that he is a body (jism) amongst the bodies, then it is known that the existing thing being considered a jism (body) does not prevent it from (also) being (at the same time) "waahid (one)", and that it is "one (ahad) of" the bodies, and that it is "samad" - in a similar way to it's being a body (jism) not preventing it from being living (hayy), knowing (aalim), able (qaadir).

However, the servant does not have in any of his attributes the perfection which Allaah rightly deserves (in His Attributes), and not even close to that. For Allaah, the Most High, when He is described as being "waahid" (one) and "samad" (with no interior, perfect in all his qualities) and "aalim" (knowing), and "qaadir" (able) then in all of that lies the extremity of perfection in which nothing from amongst the things has any likeness to that in anything.

However, when the meanings that they (the Mutakallimoon) have mentioned, which they have considered to be "kathrah" (numerousness), and "adad" (number) and "tarkeeb" (composition) are established for every existing (thing) - and this does not prevent [entities from] the creation [being referred to as] "waahid" (one) - then how is that impossible, that the Deity to whom there is no likeness should also be "ahad" (one)?!

What Ibn Taymiyyah means is that the Mutakallimoon (and the Philosophers) consider the affirmation of multiple meanings (attributes) for a single entity to be composition. However, Allaah has referred to people in the Qur'an as "waahid" and "ahad" and "waheed", yet these are people described with attributes such as life, hearing, seeing, speech and so on. So Ibn Taymiyyah is saying, if Allaah has referred to such entities as "waahid (one)", then how is it impossible for Allaah - alongside being described with attributes (which the Mutakallimoon deny to varying degrees) - to be describe with "ahad (one)".

And this is made clear through the ninth angle: Which is that these meanings - which the heart knows that one of them are not the (same) as the other, is an unescapable matter, as has become known in all suppositions. And to negate this is to negate every existing thing, and it is the extremity of sophistry.

And what he means here is that the meaning of the attributes are different, so the heart knows "hearing" is other than "seeing" which are other than "knowledge" and so on. To deny this is pure sophistry. However, to the Philosophers and Mutakallimoon, this is considered "tarkeeb" (composition) - that multiple meanings exist in a single entity.